Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Warriors of Chaos Campaign Redone (Devs are very welcome to express thoughts)

Introduction This post and thread is dedicated to giving suggestions and ideas for making the WoC campaign very fun and challenging to play. But mostly fun. They are currently a basic horde faction becoming less and less interesting as the game pushes forward with improvements, DLC, and the trilogy installments. This is the culmination of discussion from my old Warriors of Chaos Overhaul thread with new and improved ideas for the campaign. The devs are very welcome to comment on their thoughts and opinions of this post. Don't worry, your opinion will be regarding as an individual one and not the entirety of CA. I want your input and honest thoughts because they put things into perspective because this is your game. Anything from the difficulty to do it, if you like something, or even if you don't please say it. Could even say you are going to pitch this to the team to implement it . I know this is a hefty load of work probably. And the elephant in the room is whether the devs want to do this for free, because of the no dlc for dlc policy. No matter how much we want to pay you for doing this for chaos we can't. Not to mention all of the individuals on the team being in agreement is probably rare. But I hope that you consider committing some dev time on the WoC during Game 3 development at least.

Warriors of Chaos Campaign

*Spreading Corruption*(More ways to do it=fun)

--Give chaos heroes the ability to manipulate another agent to join their cause.

--Give chaos heroes the ability to manipulate lords and control their army temporarily depending on the skill and level. Limit it to 2 turns (3max) and exempt the AI from having that ability. (An extra layer to this could be enabling of chaos manipulation through a trait that was given by staying in chaos corrupted land for certain time. So you wouldn't be able(or less likely) to manipulate lords and heroes to your cause. The longer you stay in corrupt land the more likely you'll get the trait, and the more susceptible that character is to the whispers of chaos. )

--Give chaos heroes the ability to infiltrate a settlement for X amount of turns. After X amount of turns there will be a new building( maybe a corrupted variation) that replaces a current building in that settlement. This new building will be one that sucks money out of the faction and cause chaos corruption. -1200 gold and +5 corruption. These buildings can cost a chunk of money to get rid of to really affect treasuries and possibly cripple the economy for a while. And your agent might get wounded and fail the mission in the process depending on level and skill.

***On 70% corruption and higher, give a post battle option to erect a Chaos Citadel in capital regions only. Limit these Citadels to 3. These citadels provide excellent replenishment in local region, corruption all around that region, small recruitment cost reductions factionwide, and most importantly....keeping your campaign alive(just like the lore aka Brass keep) . If all your horde armies die without a citadel game over. But if you have a chaos citadel then you will have refuge in it, and you won't have to start over. I suggest that these citadels have garrisons, and maybe even upgradable garrisons. But I do want these citadels to be possibly sieged by the AI or the player. It could be a player exclusive thing though, it's up to you. But who doesn't want to siege a chaos citadel?

--More engaging ruinous powers element to the campaign. It's called the Eye of the gods. Very similar to Bretonnia chivalry. But it involves more quests too. "The WoC have to do certain deeds to keep the gods entertained or risk losing divine support. " The affects of the range of high to low dark god support can have rewards and punishments. ExamplesPunishment-Another chaos stack appears to fight you-an agent betrays you-you lose an entire stack because the general turn into a chaos spawn LOL- infighting attrition

--More pop up events that make you think and choose according to campaign situation. Could be more intriguing lore pop ups

*Difficulty* (mainly for a fun steam rolling check)

-- Random hordes whether beastmen or chaos challenge your power. A horde spawns bent on killing you. This could either happen after you build your first citadel, or randomly. I wouldn't make these armies too powerful though because the End game battle should have the best and toughest units. This could have a 10% chance of happening each turn when you build the citadel. Maybe each citadel increases the chances by 10%. Meaning by the limit I set, which is 3 citadels, that's a 30% chance of being challenged by a start up or traitor horde.

--If your chaos lord loses 2 or 3 battles or retreats from them he will turn into a chaos spawn and the army will be halved by attrition in one turn and you'll have to replace that general. Or your army will continue to take attrition until you replace that general. (Only for regular chaos lords)

*Tech Tree*

-- Have the skill boxes that you pay for increase 2 skill points to recruited generals. The main line of tech can offer skill level to the recuited lords , so your late-game lords will be able to jump into the fight much faster.

*Diplomacy*

-- Cooperation with the Dark Elves, Skaven, Ogres, Norsca, or any other neutral or chaos faction.(chaos players might want to team up with them or vassalize them)

--Scrap close proximity horde infighting as a feature. Or please give us a reason why it's a thing. It has offered nothing but frustration that has no gameplay value other than being very limiting and annoying. I know someone designed this and their ego might kick in by reading that but I mean no harm. I just want a solid reason, or just get rid of it, or even better consider the idea for close proximity infighting above in *Unique Horde Gameplay*.

---Revoice Archaon. He sounds too crazed robot orcy to me, or a wrestling promo. Archaon should sound like a menacing Dark lord. Hint: Use Narrator from the Chaos trailer or someone who sounds more menacing.

--I would like a chaos lord wielding a huge battleaxe. Everyone of them has a sword

--Just like a monster, have Archaon do special kill animations

Attempt at a technical explanation-->

Starting with the new Corruption ideas. Manipulating other agents to join your cause is the most basic one, something that could be easily implemented. It's from other total war games as well, and fitting for a unique chaos agent ability. So there's not much to say there preaching to the choir. Next, and way more complicated, is the the suggestion of using your chaos agent to take control or manipulate the opposing lord. Resulting in you commanding his army. This would be done the same way you do other agent actions. This was in shogun2 I believe where you could have a chunk of an army double cross to your side. But this can be done more simply, by either having that lord die and replaced with a chaos lord, replaced by that agent, or have that lord be under your command. Essentially either embedding your agent as general, or converting the army to your control. I know an army cannot be without a general. Of course these would need a new event thing saying "This Hero/Lord succumbs to the power of Chaos". Lastly, the ability to have an agent infiltrate a settlement. Very new to the franchise. New ability simply called Infiltrate. Done the same way you would assault the garrison of a settlement. I'm thinking two things here, either this action be done by click fail or succeed like normally, or this be a case where the infiltrate action has a wait time of X amount of turns, disabling the use of that agent until X turns are done. The success or fail is at the mercy of the normal conditions of agent actions like skill and level which I'll get into briefly. This feature would be very much like the run spy network, but against an enemy settlement that results in your agents death, wounded state, or a vandalization building that replaces one of the buildings in the settlement spreading corruption, bad public order, and having a huge building cost like -1200 or something. This in my head simulates the hero establishing cults.All these new corruption options can be tied to one skill node. Every chaos agent, or just sorcerers, can have a new skill node named Manipulation with 3 upgrades. Possibly unlocked at level 5.

Now to the Citadel idea. Ok this will definitely require new conditions. The idea of the chaos citadel is that you can only build it on a certain amount of corruption in the region. So the condition or coding would be to add that option on a percentage of corruption of your choosing as a post siege option. Or a settlement occupation option. Another condition is that they are exclusive to main settlement regions, or the capital settlement.I don't know if this would be a new condition, but it's more a limit, which is Citadels are limited to three. Limited to 3 because of their purpose which I'm going to get into. These citadels are not technically Altdorf or Black Crag, these citadels are Oak of ages. One building chain with maybe 2 or 3 upgrades. You can add whatever traits to these buildings you like, but the main point is to save your campaign. Every chaos player knows that loseing your armies is the end of the game unlike non horde factions. Well these citadels would have a campaign saving trait. Only can you build three, anywhere you want. The accompanying traits I would suggests are to blast the area with corruption, helping with replenishment much like Norsca. As you might know, corruption goes down over time, but these wicked citadels will fix that right up in the areas you choose to erect a citadel. To note, these citadels being destroyed should not kill the campaign, but it allows for you to lose the campaign once your armies are lost again, just like normal.TExc_script_conditionsabilitiesaction_resultsaction_results_addition_outcomesagent_actionsagent_actions_subculture_overrides(basically all the agent stuff)cai_personalitiescampaign_featurescampaign_localized_stringscampaign_variablescharacter_skill_nodesfood_factorscampaign_map_settlementssettlement_occupation_optionssettlement_vadalisation_buildingsculture_settlement_occupation_optionscampaign_selltment_display_buildings

Very cool man. I do think that if there are more ways to corrupt the map, that the amount of corruption points should not be too high. So you have to work for it. Instead of easily corrupting regions with 2 or even 1 way each time. But more ways would be awesome.

Maybe even Combat Wombat will give in to the idea of infighting for the sake of that "I am a god" trait idea. Because that is really interesting. But I feel like there should be another penalty, because chaos infighting wasn't that bad as to completely bypass that powerful skill selection.

So here are some penalty and limit suggestions for that feature. -Unlocked on level 15-Causes proximity infighting-raiding income is decreased in lords army-replenish is decreased in lords army

My thoughts behind this was that only high level lords can almost legitimately claim they are a god, and the dark gods would not show them the amount of dark favor as before.

Also I might prefer this trait and skill be called "I have ascended" because claiming to be a god is probably insulting the intelligence of the his army. It would be blasphemous, .....oh wait that's the point wasn't it? It would be cool if this skill actually turned him into a daemon prince.....

There are mods which do something like that and even with somewhat lower values it's OP as hell since you have the whole map chaos-corrupted in no time.

From my perspective this is about making them fun. I don't care for the standpoint of difficulty because the base of that standpoint is not fun, but just to be challenging. If you want difficulty suggest something and we'll talk but nothing is changing in the OP because most of it has been thoroughly thought out and discussed.

CA could lower the Chaos Rift's corruption however they please if they think it's too OP no problem. I believe they disappear after a while anyway.

Do you know what I don't find to be fun? Playing campaigns that are boring because you control a Mary Sue faction and that's what your suggestions boil down to. No challenge, just various superpowered mechanics that make them practically invincible. If people want effortless domination they can always play on easy, no point in making Chaos so damn OP that it would be more effort to actually lose the campaign.

There are mods which do something like that and even with somewhat lower values it's OP as hell since you have the whole map chaos-corrupted in no time.

From my perspective this is about making them fun. I don't care for the standpoint of difficulty because the base of that standpoint is not fun, but just to be challenging. If you want difficulty suggest something and we'll talk but nothing is changing in the OP because most of it has been thoroughly thought out and discussed.

CA could lower the Chaos Rift's corruption however they please if they think it's too OP no problem. I believe they disappear after a while anyway.

Do you know what I don't find to be fun? Playing campaigns that are boring because you control a Mary Sue faction and that's what your suggestions boil down to. No challenge, just various superpowered mechanics that make them practically invincible. If people want effortless domination they can always play on easy, no point in making Chaos so damn OP that it would be more effort to actually lose the campaign.

You are more than welcome to make your own suggestions and propose changes to the OP suggestions. Sitting there and saying "NUH, dont change these! It makes Chaos too strong! Easy campaign!" and then repeating yourself on every Chaos campaign suggestion thread "HURR DURR CHAOS GONNA BE 2STRONK" isn't going to produce any results in a positive direction. You're turning yourself into the voice of anti-change through what I've seen on other threads (not just the Chaos related ones)

There are mods which do something like that and even with somewhat lower values it's OP as hell since you have the whole map chaos-corrupted in no time.

From my perspective this is about making them fun. I don't care for the standpoint of difficulty because the base of that standpoint is not fun, but just to be challenging. If you want difficulty suggest something and we'll talk but nothing is changing in the OP because most of it has been thoroughly thought out and discussed.

CA could lower the Chaos Rift's corruption however they please if they think it's too OP no problem. I believe they disappear after a while anyway.

Do you know what I don't find to be fun? Playing campaigns that are boring because you control a Mary Sue faction and that's what your suggestions boil down to. No challenge, just various superpowered mechanics that make them practically invincible. If people want effortless domination they can always play on easy, no point in making Chaos so damn OP that it would be more effort to actually lose the campaign.

I'm all ears. You have something better? I have a difficulty part in the OP. Also some of these features can be tuned and balanced by CA, I don't see them mindlessly implementing this stuff. But more specifically on Difficulty, here's section. *Difficulty*

-- Random hordes whether beastmen or chaos challenge your power. A horde spawns bent on killing you. This could either happen after you build your first citadel, or randomly. I wouldn't make these armies too powerful though because the End game battle should have the best and toughest units. This could have a 10% chance of happening each turn when you build the citadel. Maybe each citadel increases the chances by 10%. Meaning by the limit I set, which is 3 citadels, that's a 30% chance of being challenged by a start up or traitor horde.

--A blasphemes skill/ trait. "I'm am a god" trait that takes affect when selected in the chaos lords skill tree. This will enable 30%upkeep reduction and 30% recruitment cost for the lord's army, but it will enable close proximity infighting. It's optional and very useful obviously, but it will cost you infighting between that lord's armies and your other armies. More penalties for this could be raiding income decrease and lowered replenishment. Also this trait is unlocked at level 15 or higher.

--If your chaos lord loses 2 or 3 battles or retreats from them he will turn into a chaos spawn and the army will be halved by attrition in one turn and you'll have to replace that general. Or your army will continue to take attrition until you replace that general. (Only for regular chaos lords)

I have actually written this with you in mind because chaos is lacking in elements of sudden surprise or threats IF, a big if, you get steam rolling. But you didn't address anything in the OP. So that say's a lot about your intentions and your just being a contrarian.

But remember these chaos threads, not just mine, are coming from the perspective that the campaign is horribly dull in the first place, I've read it's frustrating, boring, and half baked due to them not wanting to make them playable yet.

There are mods which do something like that and even with somewhat lower values it's OP as hell since you have the whole map chaos-corrupted in no time.

From my perspective this is about making them fun. I don't care for the standpoint of difficulty because the base of that standpoint is not fun, but just to be challenging. If you want difficulty suggest something and we'll talk but nothing is changing in the OP because most of it has been thoroughly thought out and discussed.

CA could lower the Chaos Rift's corruption however they please if they think it's too OP no problem. I believe they disappear after a while anyway.

Do you know what I don't find to be fun? Playing campaigns that are boring because you control a Mary Sue faction and that's what your suggestions boil down to. No challenge, just various superpowered mechanics that make them practically invincible. If people want effortless domination they can always play on easy, no point in making Chaos so damn OP that it would be more effort to actually lose the campaign.

I'm all ears. You have something better? I have a difficulty part in the OP. Also some of these features can be tuned and balanced by CA, I don't see them mindlessly implementing this stuff. But more specifically on Difficulty, here's section. *Difficulty*

-- Random hordes whether beastmen or chaos challenge your power. A horde spawns bent on killing you. This could either happen after you build your first citadel, or randomly. I wouldn't make these armies too powerful though because the End game battle should have the best and toughest units. This could have a 10% chance of happening each turn when you build the citadel. Maybe each citadel increases the chances by 10%. Meaning by the limit I set, which is 3 citadels, that's a 30% chance of being challenged by a start up or traitor horde.

--A blasphemes skill/ trait. "I'm am a god" trait that takes affect when selected in the chaos lords skill tree. This will enable 30%upkeep reduction and 30% recruitment cost for the lord's army, but it will enable close proximity infighting. It's optional and very useful obviously, but it will cost you infighting between that lord's armies and your other armies. More penalties for this could be raiding income decrease and lowered replenishment. Also this trait is unlocked at level 15 or higher.

--If your chaos lord loses 2 or 3 battles or retreats from them he will turn into a chaos spawn and the army will be halved by attrition in one turn and you'll have to replace that general. Or your army will continue to take attrition until you replace that general. (Only for regular chaos lords)

I have actually written this with you in mind because chaos is lacking in elements of sudden surprise or threats IF, a big if, you get steam rolling. But you didn't address anything in the OP. So that say's a lot about your intentions and your just being a contrarian.

But remember these chaos threads, not just mine, are coming from the perspective that the campaign is horribly dull in the first place, I've read it's frustrating, boring, and half baked due to them not wanting to make them playable yet.

I have a sneaking suspicion CA listened to Arch Warhammer on Chaos not being playable.

There are mods which do something like that and even with somewhat lower values it's OP as hell since you have the whole map chaos-corrupted in no time.

From my perspective this is about making them fun. I don't care for the standpoint of difficulty because the base of that standpoint is not fun, but just to be challenging. If you want difficulty suggest something and we'll talk but nothing is changing in the OP because most of it has been thoroughly thought out and discussed.

CA could lower the Chaos Rift's corruption however they please if they think it's too OP no problem. I believe they disappear after a while anyway.

Do you know what I don't find to be fun? Playing campaigns that are boring because you control a Mary Sue faction and that's what your suggestions boil down to. No challenge, just various superpowered mechanics that make them practically invincible. If people want effortless domination they can always play on easy, no point in making Chaos so damn OP that it would be more effort to actually lose the campaign.

I'm all ears. You have something better? I have a difficulty part in the OP. Also some of these features can be tuned and balanced by CA, I don't see them mindlessly implementing this stuff. But more specifically on Difficulty, here's section. *Difficulty*

-- Random hordes whether beastmen or chaos challenge your power. A horde spawns bent on killing you. This could either happen after you build your first citadel, or randomly. I wouldn't make these armies too powerful though because the End game battle should have the best and toughest units. This could have a 10% chance of happening each turn when you build the citadel. Maybe each citadel increases the chances by 10%. Meaning by the limit I set, which is 3 citadels, that's a 30% chance of being challenged by a start up or traitor horde.

--A blasphemes skill/ trait. "I'm am a god" trait that takes affect when selected in the chaos lords skill tree. This will enable 30%upkeep reduction and 30% recruitment cost for the lord's army, but it will enable close proximity infighting. It's optional and very useful obviously, but it will cost you infighting between that lord's armies and your other armies. More penalties for this could be raiding income decrease and lowered replenishment. Also this trait is unlocked at level 15 or higher.

--If your chaos lord loses 2 or 3 battles or retreats from them he will turn into a chaos spawn and the army will be halved by attrition in one turn and you'll have to replace that general. Or your army will continue to take attrition until you replace that general. (Only for regular chaos lords)

I have actually written this with you in mind because chaos is lacking in elements of sudden surprise or threats IF, a big if, you get steam rolling. But you didn't address anything in the OP. So that say's a lot about your intentions and your just being a contrarian.

But remember these chaos threads, not just mine, are coming from the perspective that the campaign is horribly dull in the first place, I've read it's frustrating, boring, and half baked due to them not wanting to make them playable yet.

I have a sneaking suspicion CA listened to Arch Warhammer on Chaos not being playable.

There are mods which do something like that and even with somewhat lower values it's OP as hell since you have the whole map chaos-corrupted in no time.

From my perspective this is about making them fun. I don't care for the standpoint of difficulty because the base of that standpoint is not fun, but just to be challenging. If you want difficulty suggest something and we'll talk but nothing is changing in the OP because most of it has been thoroughly thought out and discussed.

CA could lower the Chaos Rift's corruption however they please if they think it's too OP no problem. I believe they disappear after a while anyway.

Do you know what I don't find to be fun? Playing campaigns that are boring because you control a Mary Sue faction and that's what your suggestions boil down to. No challenge, just various superpowered mechanics that make them practically invincible. If people want effortless domination they can always play on easy, no point in making Chaos so damn OP that it would be more effort to actually lose the campaign.

I'm all ears. You have something better? I have a difficulty part in the OP. Also some of these features can be tuned and balanced by CA, I don't see them mindlessly implementing this stuff. But more specifically on Difficulty, here's section. *Difficulty*

-- Random hordes whether beastmen or chaos challenge your power. A horde spawns bent on killing you. This could either happen after you build your first citadel, or randomly. I wouldn't make these armies too powerful though because the End game battle should have the best and toughest units. This could have a 10% chance of happening each turn when you build the citadel. Maybe each citadel increases the chances by 10%. Meaning by the limit I set, which is 3 citadels, that's a 30% chance of being challenged by a start up or traitor horde.

--A blasphemes skill/ trait. "I'm am a god" trait that takes affect when selected in the chaos lords skill tree. This will enable 30%upkeep reduction and 30% recruitment cost for the lord's army, but it will enable close proximity infighting. It's optional and very useful obviously, but it will cost you infighting between that lord's armies and your other armies. More penalties for this could be raiding income decrease and lowered replenishment. Also this trait is unlocked at level 15 or higher.

--If your chaos lord loses 2 or 3 battles or retreats from them he will turn into a chaos spawn and the army will be halved by attrition in one turn and you'll have to replace that general. Or your army will continue to take attrition until you replace that general. (Only for regular chaos lords)

I have actually written this with you in mind because chaos is lacking in elements of sudden surprise or threats IF, a big if, you get steam rolling. But you didn't address anything in the OP. So that say's a lot about your intentions and your just being a contrarian.

But remember these chaos threads, not just mine, are coming from the perspective that the campaign is horribly dull in the first place, I've read it's frustrating, boring, and half baked due to them not wanting to make them playable yet.

I have a sneaking suspicion CA listened to Arch Warhammer on Chaos not being playable.

There are mods which do something like that and even with somewhat lower values it's OP as hell since you have the whole map chaos-corrupted in no time.

From my perspective this is about making them fun. I don't care for the standpoint of difficulty because the base of that standpoint is not fun, but just to be challenging. If you want difficulty suggest something and we'll talk but nothing is changing in the OP because most of it has been thoroughly thought out and discussed.

CA could lower the Chaos Rift's corruption however they please if they think it's too OP no problem. I believe they disappear after a while anyway.

Do you know what I don't find to be fun? Playing campaigns that are boring because you control a Mary Sue faction and that's what your suggestions boil down to. No challenge, just various superpowered mechanics that make them practically invincible. If people want effortless domination they can always play on easy, no point in making Chaos so damn OP that it would be more effort to actually lose the campaign.

--Give chaos the ability of giving "money' to any faction in exchange for +3 to +10 corruption depending on the amount of money given for a certain amount of turns. (Ex. 500= +2 corruption 1200= +4 corruption )

I don't think the AI would either accept because they know that corruption is bad, or they don't know, and so will never decline, and will be exploitable for the player.I'd rather the player just have more ways to increase their existing corruption powers.

--Give chaos heroes the ability to manipulate another agent to join their cause.

No. In terms of AI, they already spawn by themselves all over the map, and it also means that you got non-Chaos agents either spreading Chaos, or they don't and it goes against your interest. There's really no point to this idea other than gain more agents outside of the regular limits, which is not a good thing in itself

--Give chaos heroes the ability to manipulate lords and control their army temporarily depending on the skill and level. Limit it to 2 turns (3max) and exempt the AI from having that ability.

What would we do with this idea other than to manipualte and disband (literally cheating the game's obstructions), or you can't do that, so you just suicide them and attack a neutral faction manipulating wars. While that might sound fun, it also means that your own characters don't gain XP, while the third party does. Again, this achieves nothing other than a gamey way of destroying enemy armies.

--Give chaos heroes the ability to infiltrate a settlement for X amount of turns. After X amount of turns there will be a new building( maybe a corrupted variation) that replaces a current building in that settlement. This new building will be one that sucks money out of the faction and cause chaos corruption. -1200 gold and +5 corruption. These buildings can cost a chunk of money to get rid of to really affect treasuries and possibly cripple the economy for a while. And your agent might get wounded and fail the mission in the process depending on level and skill.

Especially if you can't do anything about an infiltrted settlement, this is overpowered. If you really want a steal money ability, you simply change of the heroes' missions or passive abilities that extracted money from the region. No point making a Chaos variant of every conceivable building in the game just for the sake of stealing money.

--New and more building types. A new Raiding Tree that offers big bonuses to sacking and raiding// A new tree that increases the damage the chaos corruption does in the local region. (Could also increase the chances of characters getting the corruption trait)//New tree that bumps horde growth

Or just buff or add new abilities to skills and such. You'd still have to spend the population on these new buildings Corruption also doesn't damage things per se, so I don't know what you mean by that.

I'd rather a Chaos Citadel event be similar to Blessing of the Lady- for X number of turns after fulfilling some conditions (ie win five battles in a row), that region has a Citadel event that grants boosts to all Chaos stuff.

- Random hordes whether beastmen or chaos challenge your power. A horde spawns bent on killing you. This could either happen after you build your first citadel, or randomly. I wouldn't make these armies too powerful though because the End game battle should have the best and toughest units. This could have a 10% chance of happening each turn when you build the citadel. Maybe each citadel increases the chances by 10%. Meaning by the limit I set, which is 3 citadels, that's a 30% chance of being challenged by a start up or traitor horde.

Meh just cannon fodder stacks that simulate rebellions that you can easily farm for XP. Isn't this just the same as Beastmen and Chaos rebel spawns? If anything just change it so those two will always be at war with you.

--A blasphemes skill/ trait. "I'm am a god" trait that takes affect when selected in the chaos lords skill tree. This will enable 30%upkeep reduction and 30% recruitment cost for the lord's army, but it will enable close proximity infighting. It's optional and very useful obviously, but it will cost you infighting between that lord's armies and your other armies. More penalties for this could be raiding income decrease and lowered replenishment. Also this trait is unlocked at level 15 or higher.

So a trait that reduces upkeep and recruitment but does the same thing as the game already does via infighting?

--If your chaos lord loses 2 or 3 battles or retreats from them he will turn into a chaos spawn and the army will be halved by attrition in one turn and you'll have to replace that general. Or your army will continue to take attrition until you replace that general. (Only for regular chaos lords)

A considerable penalty especially if it's not in a row. It is also unlikely given that most of the time the Lord is killed as a means to defeat the army. The only way for this to even occur reliably would be if it happened after a single battle, but then you can simply avoid this by not recruiting regular Chaos lords, or disbanding him. Which defeats the purpose of levelling up and preserving your generals. No one would bother levelling up or recruiting regular lords as a result.

Buying skill point's won't make it a challenge, and it also means those points would be useless if you have low ranking Lords that can't unlock many of the skills due to level locks. It would then just serve to allow Lords access to more skills than they normally can, which means balance nightmare.What you seem to want is that newly hired Lords will come with bonus levels, which already occur in the game.

Scrap close proximity horde infighting as a feature. Or please give us a reason why it's a thing. It has offered nothing but frustration that has no gameplay value other than being very limiting and annoying. I know someone designed this and their ego might kick in by reading that but I mean no harm. I just want a solid reason, or just get rid of it, or even better consider the idea for close proximity infighting above in difficulty.

Lore-wise, Chaos isn't a single coherent force that stay together out of brotherly love. They stay together because charismatic Lords force them to. Infighting reflects the rivalry of multiple such Lords.Gameplay wise, it serves to make you fight battles differently than other races. Unfortunately the AI isn't very smart and will park armies next to eachother for ages, letting you chew them up easily. At the same time the mechanic can be gamed by fighting together, then immediately separating them before ending turn.At least Norsca doesn't suffer this mechanic.

From my perspective this is about making them fun. I don't care for the standpoint of difficulty because the base of that standpoint is not fun, but just to be challenging. If you want difficulty suggest something and we'll talk but nothing is changing in the OP because most of it has been thoroughly thought out and discussed.

CA could lower the Chaos Rift's corruption however they please if they think it's too OP no problem. I believe they disappear after a while anyway.

Your perspective can be easily accomplished by finding the mods in Workshop, and as such does not require imposition on the rest of us.

I don't like a lot of things that Chaos has, but I can pick my poison by looking up the various mods. There are even variants like 3x, 5x, 100x corruption and such. If you want for the fun, then look up mods.

You are more than welcome to make your own suggestions and propose changes to the OP suggestions. Sitting there and saying "NUH, dont change these! It makes Chaos too strong! Easy campaign!" and then repeating yourself on every Chaos campaign suggestion thread "HURR DURR CHAOS GONNA BE 2STRONK" isn't going to produce any results in a positive direction. You're turning yourself into the voice of anti-change through what I've seen on other threads (not just the Chaos related ones)

I believe his suggestions are clear enough. You just don't like those suggestions and resort to deliberate misinterpretation.I'm not anti-change just because I dislike your suggestions, or find Chaos is fine the way it is. Certainly not when you run out of counterarguments that you need to resort to remarking on another post'ers behaviour in other parts of the forum.

Your ideas aren't great, impractical, or can be resolved with mods. Focus on the impractical ones and see what can be done better, enjoy the ones provided by mods, and hope the devs do something with everything else.

--Give chaos the ability of giving "money' to any faction in exchange for +3 to +10 corruption depending on the amount of money given for a certain amount of turns. (Ex. 500= +2 corruption 1200= +4 corruption )

I don't think the AI would either accept because they know that corruption is bad, or they don't know, and so will never decline, and will be exploitable for the player.I'd rather the player just have more ways to increase their existing corruption powers.

You're the only one who noticed that flaw lol. But I don't know, I think much can be done with some programming. Let the AI know that it's money, and let them know it's corruption. They will take it or not depending on desperation.

--Give chaos heroes the ability to manipulate another agent to join their cause.

No. In terms of AI, they already spawn by themselves all over the map, and it also means that you got non-Chaos agents either spreading Chaos, or they don't and it goes against your interest. There's really no point to this idea other than gain more agents outside of the regular limits, which is not a good thing in itself

If you mean from the assumed perspective of the AI, no it's fine. As the player, manipulating other agents not only gets rid of the AI's use of that agent against you, but it turns it against the AI. Whether that agent causes corruption or not is not a big deal, because of the obvious reasons of that agent being in your command now.

--Give chaos heroes the ability to manipulate lords and control their army temporarily depending on the skill and level. Limit it to 2 turns (3max) and exempt the AI from having that ability.

What would we do with this idea other than to manipualte and disband (literally cheating the game's obstructions), or you can't do that, so you just suicide them and attack a neutral faction manipulating wars. While that might sound fun, it also means that your own characters don't gain XP, while the third party does. Again, this achieves nothing other than a gamey way of destroying enemy armies.

You said that the agent wouldn't gain xp from that, but how would you know? I'd say he would get xp for manipulating a lord. Just like any other action he gains xp.

--Give chaos heroes the ability to infiltrate a settlement for X amount of turns. After X amount of turns there will be a new building( maybe a corrupted variation) that replaces a current building in that settlement. This new building will be one that sucks money out of the faction and cause chaos corruption. -1200 gold and +5 corruption. These buildings can cost a chunk of money to get rid of to really affect treasuries and possibly cripple the economy for a while. And your agent might get wounded and fail the mission in the process depending on level and skill.

Especially if you can't do anything about an infiltrted settlement, this is overpowered. If you really want a steal money ability, you simply change of the heroes' missions or passive abilities that extracted money from the region. No point making a Chaos variant of every conceivable building in the game just for the sake of stealing money.

There does not need to be a chaos variant building for every building type. I said the new building could replace one of the current buildings in the settlement. And this is not overpowered. It's purpose is to be powerful but not overpowered. The amount of "money" and corruption it does can be adjusted by CAbalancing and even mods.

--Make the encampment stance a raiding encampment stance. Replenishment and raiding at the same time.Along with a moving raid stance that does not provide replenishment.

Greenskins already have this stance. And unlike Greenskins' Fightiness which forces you to keep moving, Chaos doesn't have such penalties.

Yup, got it from the greenskins. I don't see chaos encamping without continuing to raid lol. Also it helps with the constant dept the WoC armies are always in. Once you need to replenish, you still lose lots of money, so raid encamp stance would help.

--New and more building types. A new Raiding Tree that offers big bonuses to sacking and raiding// A new tree that increases the damage the chaos corruption does in the local region. (Could also increase the chances of characters getting the corruption trait)//New tree that bumps horde growth

Or just buff or add new abilities to skills and such. You'd still have to spend the population on these new buildings Corruption also doesn't damage things per se, so I don't know what you mean by that.

I'd rather a Chaos Citadel event be similar to Blessing of the Lady- for X number of turns after fulfilling some conditions (ie win five battles in a row), that region has a Citadel event that grants boosts to all Chaos stuff

They could just buff some tech or skills but that's not interesting. Adding new skills and stuff, sure. Chaos corruption does damage armies in the way of attrition. I'm talking about a building chain that increases that attrition damage in whatever local region the horde is in.

- Random hordes whether beastmen or chaos challenge your power. A horde spawns bent on killing you. This could either happen after you build your first citadel, or randomly. I wouldn't make these armies too powerful though because the End game battle should have the best and toughest units. This could have a 10% chance of happening each turn when you build the citadel. Maybe each citadel increases the chances by 10%. Meaning by the limit I set, which is 3 citadels, that's a 30% chance of being challenged by a start up or traitor horde.

Meh just cannon fodder stacks that simulate rebellions that you can easily farm for XP. Isn't this just the same as Beastmen and Chaos rebel spawns? If anything just change it so those two will always be at war with you.

I didn't state that these are for easy battles and farming xp though. This is a random event, not a public order problem. I also said that these up start or traitor hordes are dead set on killing you, so they would immediately be a at war with you and only you.

--A blasphemes skill/ trait. "I'm am a god" trait that takes affect when selected in the chaos lords skill tree. This will enable 30%upkeep reduction and 30% recruitment cost for the lord's army, but it will enable close proximity infighting. It's optional and very useful obviously, but it will cost you infighting between that lord's armies and your other armies. More penalties for this could be raiding income decrease and lowered replenishment. Also this trait is unlocked at level 15 or higher.

So a trait that reduces upkeep and recruitment but does the same thing as the game already does via infighting?

This is a feature assuming that infighting attrition is no longer default. It also makes a little more sense that infighting attrition is caused by a trait rather than chaos undivided fighting each other like animals. Close proximity infighting is a horrible feature for hordes, let alone Archaon's Undivided faction theme and roster.

--If your chaos lord loses 2 or 3 battles or retreats from them he will turn into a chaos spawn and the army will be halved by attrition in one turn and you'll have to replace that general. Or your army will continue to take attrition until you replace that general. (Only for regular chaos lords)

A considerable penalty especially if it's not in a row. It is also unlikely given that most of the time the Lord is killed as a means to defeat the army. The only way for this to even occur reliably would be if it happened after a single battle, but then you can simply avoid this by not recruiting regular Chaos lords, or disbanding him. Which defeats the purpose of levelling up and preserving your generals. No one would bother levelling up or recruiting regular lords as a result.

Lol I personally don't recruit regular lords anyway most of the time. I use them for distractions and bait. So this feature wouldn't suddenly encourage different behavior other than not losing battles with a chaos general. But yeah, it makes sense that this not be a penalty for lost battles in a row, but for loseing battles in general.

--Cooperation with the Dark Elves, Skaven, Ogres, Norsca, or any other neutral or chaos faction.

You need to define what "cooperation" means.

Diplomacy. But this is not a big deal though because as Chaos I'm going to wreck everything anyway. But a chaos player might want to vassalize these guys or team up with them.

If I am reading you right, you want all Norsca to love Chaos even if not allied or at war with you. Neither lore-friendly nor practical given the current design.

This a "gimma a break" request that I thought would help further the progress of getting the norsca factions to stop saying no whilst doing nothing. I feel like once Archaon has gotta on friendlier terms or outright crushes a norsca faction they in particular should be more willing to vassalize and pay tribute. It's only fitting that norsca submits under Archaon.

--Scrap close proximity horde infighting as a feature. Or please give us a reason why it's a thing. It has offered nothing but frustration that has no gameplay value other than being very limiting and annoying. I know someone designed this and their ego might kick in by reading that but I mean no harm. I just want a solid reason, or just get rid of it, or even better consider the idea for close proximity infighting above in difficulty.

Lore-wise, Chaos isn't a single coherent force that stay together out of brotherly love. They stay together because charismatic Lords force them to. Infighting reflects the rivalry of multiple such Lords.Gameplay wise, it serves to make you fight battles differently than other races. Unfortunately the AI isn't very smart and will park armies next to eachother for ages, letting you chew them up easily. At the same time the mechanic can be gamed by fighting together, then immediately separating them before ending turn.At least Norsca doesn't suffer this mechanic.

Is chaos a single coherent force? Of course not. Is a horde of men united under the chosen of the gods, who happens to tolerate no infighting a single coherent force? You bet your ass it is. If you even read half of the end times or anything about Arhaons's minions, there is no armies infighting. His minion lords fight in cohesion with eachother. It's better that this mechanic be the result of an action or a trait or a skill selection than being a default state of a faction that particularly should not have it.

You're the only one who noticed that flaw lol. But I don't know, I think much can be done with some programming. Let the AI know that it's money, and let them know it's corruption. They will take it or not depending on desperation.

If you mean from the assumed perspective of the AI, no it's fine. As the player, manipulating other agents not only gets rid of the AI's use of that agent against you, but it turns it against the AI. Whether that agent causes corruption or not is not a big deal, because of the obvious reasons of that agent being in your command now.

Agent spam is a big problem in Total War. This idea makes it worse by bringing back somethign that was abandoned from Rome2.

You said that the agent wouldn't gain xp from that, but how would you know? I'd say he would get xp for manipulating a lord. Just like any other action he gains xp.

I did not say that. if you can use other armies besides your own, you either win and don't gain XP for your own Lords, or you lose them and you walk in with Chaos to mop up. Overpowered and defeats the purpose of playing as Chaos. Not to mention the issue of DLC factions and armies.

There does not need to be a chaos variant building for every building type. I said the new building could replace one of the current buildings in the settlement. And this is not overpowered. It's purpose is to be powerful but not overpowered. The amount of "money" and corruption it does can be adjusted by CAbalancing and even mods.

The instant you make mention of a "new" building, you need to make a variant of something, or something entirely from scratch. Which is a Chaos variant. Chaos doesn't need new ways to make money, and certainly not one that avoids fighting. This isn't C&C Generals' GLA here.

Yup, got it from the greenskins. I don't see chaos encamping without continuing to raid lol. Also it helps with the constant dept the WoC armies are always in. Once you need to replenish, you still lose lots of money, so raid encamp stance would help.

We don't need CA ripping off other features that are supposed to be unique to other races.

I didn't state that these are for easy battles and farming xp though. This is a random event, not a public order problem. I also said that these up start or traitor hordes are dead set on killing you, so they would immediately be a at war with you and only you.

This a "gimma a break" request that I thought would help further the progress of getting the norsca factions to stop saying no whilst doing nothing. I feel like once Archaon has gotta on friendlier terms or outright crushes a norsca faction they in particular should be more willing to vassalize and pay tribute. It's only fitting that norsca submits under Archaon.

Is chaos a single coherent force? Of course not. Is a horde of men united under the chosen of the gods, who happens to tolerate no infighting a single coherent force? You bet your ass it is. If you even read half of the end times or anything about Arhaons's minions, there is no armies infighting. His minion lords fight in cohesion with eachother. It's better that this mechanic be the result of an action or a trait or a skill selection than being a default state of a faction that particularly should not have it.

You are more than welcome to make your own suggestions and propose changes to the OP suggestions. Sitting there and saying "NUH, dont change these! It makes Chaos too strong! Easy campaign!" and then repeating yourself on every Chaos campaign suggestion thread "HURR DURR CHAOS GONNA BE 2STRONK" isn't going to produce any results in a positive direction. You're turning yourself into the voice of anti-change through what I've seen on other threads (not just the Chaos related ones)

I believe his suggestions are clear enough. You just don't like those suggestions and resort to deliberate misinterpretation.I'm not anti-change just because I dislike your suggestions, or find Chaos is fine the way it is. Certainly not when you run out of counterarguments that you need to resort to remarking on another post'ers behaviour in other parts of the forum.

Your ideas aren't great, impractical, or can be resolved with mods. Focus on the impractical ones and see what can be done better, enjoy the ones provided by mods, and hope the devs do something with everything else.

He didn't make any suggestions, and he's just trying to be combative through constant naysaying and contrasting to the point where it makes no sense and it defeats the point of the thread. He does it all the time, and how fitting is it that you don't like him being called out.

You say some features can be resolved through mods but not everyone uses mods like you. So stop saying that. Also pay attention to who you're responding to because Chaosdragonborn is not Combat Wombat.

Agent spam is a big problem in Total War. This idea makes it worse by bringing back somethign that was abandoned from Rome2.

Agent spam is not actually a problem in this game, and on top of that this idea has nothing to do with agent spam. In the case of agent spam being a legit problem this idea might even help. You haven't made the connection so I don't see a problem.

I did not say that. if you can use other armies besides your own, you either win and don't gain XP for your own Lords, or you lose them and you walk in with Chaos to mop up. Overpowered and defeats the purpose of playing as Chaos. Not to mention the issue of DLC factions and armies.

You said- "While that might sound fun, it also means that your own characters don't gain XP, while the third party does." What you said here and now is baseless because it's assumption on the possibly of gaining xp. The point of this feature is to do whatever you like to the lord you control whether that's to move him way out of the way, wreck his army against his own settlement or whatever. The possibilities are many. I think it's a great feature.

The instant you make mention of a "new" building, you need to make a variant of something, or something entirely from scratch. Which is a Chaos variant. Chaos doesn't need new ways to make money, and certainly not one that avoids fighting. This isn't C&C Generals' GLA here.

This is absolutely incorrect. As I said twice now, the new building is a chaos building that would suck money out of the faction and spread corruption in the region. This is not a variant, but a new building. It's one building. Not many, one. .

We don't need CA ripping off other features that are supposed to be unique to other races.

Well CA can do whatever they like. You might have a problem with the beastmen and orcs then, because they share many features. But I'm betting you don't. So chaos getting a raiding encamp stance wouldn't compromise the orcs.

Then this idea is even worse. So flat out no.

The idea is good to me, because it will give chaos players cause for pause if they are in a steam rolling situation. It also will provide a potentiality good battle.

The infighting simulates fighting between armies, not within.

Sure...and it's pointless Like I said It's better that this mechanic be the result of an action or a trait or a skill selection than being a default state of a faction that particularly should not have it.

Agent spam is not actually a problem in this game, and on top of that this idea has nothing to do with agent spam. In the case of agent spam being a legit problem this idea might even help. You haven't made the connection so I don't see a problem.

That's the good thing about this game- there is no agent spam issue. But being able to manipulate other factions agents to add to your own count means you can spam agents. If you want to be fair and balanced the AI should do the same thing too.Then you got agent spam. That's the connection.

You said- "While that might sound fun, it also means that your own characters don't gain XP, while the third party does." What you said here and now is baseless because it's assumption on the possibly of gaining xp. The point of this feature is to do whatever you like to the lord you control whether that's to move him way out of the way, wreck his army against his own settlement or whatever. The possibilities are many. I think it's a great feature.

Characters I mean both Lords and Heroes. You need Lords to level up (no assumptions there,. your Lords level up when they fight battles), and the basic way to achieving that is fighting other armies. It is also the main way to play the game. Beign able to go around that- indeed, designing a faction where you HAVE to go around that- defeats this single element of Warhammer TW gameplay. So no, it's not a great feature. You literally become able to play as other factions and use other units. That's not playing as Warriors of Chaos. What I say is not baseless simply because you ignore it. Being able to do things by using other factions' armies like your own, is not only against how the game is meant to be played, but against the point of managing armies. And that's conveniently ignoring the technical issues of converting armies to your control by agent action.

This is absolutely incorrect. As I said twice now, the new building is a chaos building that would suck money out of the faction and spread corruption in the region. This is not a variant, but a new building. It's one building. Not many, one.

I see what you mean: it's not a bad idea then, it's frankly a stupid one.You want a random settlement's building to suddenly siphon 1200 gold and cause additional corruption, and itself cost a lot of money to get rid of. Gamebreaking just in concept.

Well CA can do whatever they like. You might have a problem with the beastmen and orcs then, because they share many features. But I'm betting you don't. So chaos getting a raiding encamp stance wouldn't compromise the orcs.

They'll do what they like, and that tends to be what's good for the game in its entirety. Your ideas don't contribute to that, so I frankly don't think these ideas would work, let alone be taken seriously.I do have a problem with Beastmen and Orcs sharing the few similarities they have, that's one of the bad things about Beastmen and IMO one of the reasons why its not one of the more popular factions. So you bet wrong.None of that matters because none of that pertains to this idea being good. Chaos can already gain a lot from sacking settlements, and needing to do so to stay alive is part of their gameplay. A method to survive without doing so isn't, so naturally such ideas aren't going to be good ones.

Sure...and it's pointless Like I said It's better that this mechanic be the result of an action or a trait or a skill selection than being a default state of a faction that particularly should not have it.

Not pointless at all, it prevents you from camping armies close together for long periods of time, and reflects the fact that Chaos is about keeping things moving to ensure your armies don't drain your treasury after they've been built up to a point. And considering the "Blasphemous" trait (I presume you meant skill) is unlocked at a higher point in the game, gives very significant bonuses, and merely causes infighting, no wise Chaos player would ignore this skill and you just have everyone with infighting unlocked, anyways. So your idea doesn't solve the problem of this being pointless or less annoying.There are solid reasons why this mechanic exists, you just don't like them. But again, this is one of the things that can be modded out, and because of that it's hardly a priority for the developers to "fix".

Agent spam is not actually a problem in this game, and on top of that this idea has nothing to do with agent spam. In the case of agent spam being a legit problem this idea might even help. You haven't made the connection so I don't see a problem.

That's the good thing about this game- there is no agent spam issue. But being able to manipulate other factions agents to add to your own count means you can spam agents. If you want to be fair and balanced the AI should do the same thing too.Then you got agent spam. That's the connection.

You said- "While that might sound fun, it also means that your own characters don't gain XP, while the third party does." What you said here and now is baseless because it's assumption on the possibly of gaining xp. The point of this feature is to do whatever you like to the lord you control whether that's to move him way out of the way, wreck his army against his own settlement or whatever. The possibilities are many. I think it's a great feature.

Characters I mean both Lords and Heroes. You need Lords to level up (no assumptions there,. your Lords level up when they fight battles), and the basic way to achieving that is fighting other armies. It is also the main way to play the game. Beign able to go around that- indeed, designing a faction where you HAVE to go around that- defeats this single element of Warhammer TW gameplay. So no, it's not a great feature. You literally become able to play as other factions and use other units. That's not playing as Warriors of Chaos. What I say is not baseless simply because you ignore it. Being able to do things by using other factions' armies like your own, is not only against how the game is meant to be played, but against the point of managing armies. And that's conveniently ignoring the technical issues of converting armies to your control by agent action.

This is absolutely incorrect. As I said twice now, the new building is a chaos building that would suck money out of the faction and spread corruption in the region. This is not a variant, but a new building. It's one building. Not many, one.

I see what you mean: it's not a bad idea then, it's frankly a stupid one.You want a random settlement's building to suddenly siphon 1200 gold and cause additional corruption, and itself cost a lot of money to get rid of. Gamebreaking just in concept.

Well CA can do whatever they like. You might have a problem with the beastmen and orcs then, because they share many features. But I'm betting you don't. So chaos getting a raiding encamp stance wouldn't compromise the orcs.

They'll do what they like, and that tends to be what's good for the game in its entirety. Your ideas don't contribute to that, so I frankly don't think these ideas would work, let alone be taken seriously.I do have a problem with Beastmen and Orcs sharing the few similarities they have, that's one of the bad things about Beastmen and IMO one of the reasons why its not one of the more popular factions. So you bet wrong.None of that matters because none of that pertains to this idea being good. Chaos can already gain a lot from sacking settlements, and needing to do so to stay alive is part of their gameplay. A method to survive without doing so isn't, so naturally such ideas aren't going to be good ones.

Sure...and it's pointless Like I said It's better that this mechanic be the result of an action or a trait or a skill selection than being a default state of a faction that particularly should not have it.

Not pointless at all, it prevents you from camping armies close together for long periods of time, and reflects the fact that Chaos is about keeping things moving to ensure your armies don't drain your treasury after they've been built up to a point. And considering the "Blasphemous" trait (I presume you meant skill) is unlocked at a higher point in the game, gives very significant bonuses, and merely causes infighting, no wise Chaos player would ignore this skill and you just have everyone with infighting unlocked, anyways. So your idea doesn't solve the problem of this being pointless or less annoying.There are solid reasons why this mechanic exists, you just don't like them. But again, this is one of the things that can be modded out, and because of that it's hardly a priority for the developers to "fix".

Your explanations for why the ideas are bad is quite stupid. First of all the AI being bad is of your opinion, and it's a general enough statement to not exactly apply to the idea of giving chaos corruption through giving money as a bad one. Then you came up with the agent spam thing, then admitted this game as no agent spam, but to oppose the idea you say it causes agent spam. lol Brilliant. Then you come up with no xp gain for controlling lords, you can't win there, so now you ignore the limits of the feature and say that it's not how the game is meant to be played. What?! We are talking about WoC and WoC only, not the entire game. Also the limit is 2 turns or 3 turns max. I particularly like those features because they are unique to chaos and would make them more fun and chaotic to play. I believe a dev said he liked it to. With the infiltrate settlement and replace building thing, you simple can't muster a good reason to oppose it can you? It's not gamebreaking, that's just as stupid as saying flying total war units is game breaking before it's done. That's not something you know, and it can only be tested. ...and the defense of chaos infighting was sillier than your first attempt. With the blasphemous trait there could be more penalties. Like I said before-Unlocked on level 15 or higher-Causes close proximity infighting-raiding income is decreased in lords army-replenish is decreased in lords army

...there could be more or they could be different. My thoughts behind this was that only high level lords can almost legitimately claim they are a god, and the dark gods would not show them the amount of dark favor as before. Otherwise I'll gladly see chaos infighting gone.

Yes the AI can be bad in certain areas of the game, but the idea of it being bad is not broad enough just to say that for any idea that has the AI involved especially when the Devs know the ends and outs.

Agent spam is not actually a problem in this game, and on top of that this idea has nothing to do with agent spam. In the case of agent spam being a legit problem this idea might even help. You haven't made the connection so I don't see a problem.

That's the good thing about this game- there is no agent spam issue. But being able to manipulate other factions agents to add to your own count means you can spam agents. If you want to be fair and balanced the AI should do the same thing too.Then you got agent spam. That's the connection.

You said- "While that might sound fun, it also means that your own characters don't gain XP, while the third party does." What you said here and now is baseless because it's assumption on the possibly of gaining xp. The point of this feature is to do whatever you like to the lord you control whether that's to move him way out of the way, wreck his army against his own settlement or whatever. The possibilities are many. I think it's a great feature.

Characters I mean both Lords and Heroes. You need Lords to level up (no assumptions there,. your Lords level up when they fight battles), and the basic way to achieving that is fighting other armies. It is also the main way to play the game. Beign able to go around that- indeed, designing a faction where you HAVE to go around that- defeats this single element of Warhammer TW gameplay. So no, it's not a great feature. You literally become able to play as other factions and use other units. That's not playing as Warriors of Chaos. What I say is not baseless simply because you ignore it. Being able to do things by using other factions' armies like your own, is not only against how the game is meant to be played, but against the point of managing armies. And that's conveniently ignoring the technical issues of converting armies to your control by agent action.

This is absolutely incorrect. As I said twice now, the new building is a chaos building that would suck money out of the faction and spread corruption in the region. This is not a variant, but a new building. It's one building. Not many, one.

I see what you mean: it's not a bad idea then, it's frankly a stupid one.You want a random settlement's building to suddenly siphon 1200 gold and cause additional corruption, and itself cost a lot of money to get rid of. Gamebreaking just in concept.

Well CA can do whatever they like. You might have a problem with the beastmen and orcs then, because they share many features. But I'm betting you don't. So chaos getting a raiding encamp stance wouldn't compromise the orcs.

They'll do what they like, and that tends to be what's good for the game in its entirety. Your ideas don't contribute to that, so I frankly don't think these ideas would work, let alone be taken seriously.I do have a problem with Beastmen and Orcs sharing the few similarities they have, that's one of the bad things about Beastmen and IMO one of the reasons why its not one of the more popular factions. So you bet wrong.None of that matters because none of that pertains to this idea being good. Chaos can already gain a lot from sacking settlements, and needing to do so to stay alive is part of their gameplay. A method to survive without doing so isn't, so naturally such ideas aren't going to be good ones.

Sure...and it's pointless Like I said It's better that this mechanic be the result of an action or a trait or a skill selection than being a default state of a faction that particularly should not have it.

Not pointless at all, it prevents you from camping armies close together for long periods of time, and reflects the fact that Chaos is about keeping things moving to ensure your armies don't drain your treasury after they've been built up to a point. And considering the "Blasphemous" trait (I presume you meant skill) is unlocked at a higher point in the game, gives very significant bonuses, and merely causes infighting, no wise Chaos player would ignore this skill and you just have everyone with infighting unlocked, anyways. So your idea doesn't solve the problem of this being pointless or less annoying.There are solid reasons why this mechanic exists, you just don't like them. But again, this is one of the things that can be modded out, and because of that it's hardly a priority for the developers to "fix".

With the blasphemous trait there could be more penalties. Like I said before-Unlocked on level 15 or higher-Causes close proximity infighting-raiding income is decreased in lords army-replenish is decreased in lords army

...there could be more or they could be different. My thoughts behind this was that only high level lords can almost legitimately claim they are a god, and the dark gods would not show them the amount of dark favor as before. Otherwise I'll gladly see chaos infighting gone.

Even the beneficial attributes can be different. As long as the close proximity infighting is not default in the chaos campaign. I would happily accept close proximity infighting if it were by a penalty or consequence of a trait or skill selection. The idea is that every chaos lord has this skill, it is unlocked and enabled at any high level, 15 on up. The penalties should give you some thought on whether to take it or not depending on what lord it is and the state of your campaign. But the benefits should be tempting as well. I think the penalties should discourage you from selecting that skill for all your chaos lords. But of course you can do it anyway.

Also interesting, is a skill or trait that makes a chaos lord immune to infighting. Archaon can have this at the start but others would have to level up.

First of all the AI being bad is of your opinion, and it's a general enough statement to not exactly apply to the idea of giving chaos corruption through giving money as a bad one.

Are you going to say that Total War AI in general, and Warhammer's AI in particular, is not bad but in opinion great? It's an established fact and something we deal with. Most of the game features are designed to get around the AI's limitations. That's not a bad thing, it's good or bad depending on how well it does that. A diplomacy feature that lets you basically buy corruption leads to two outcomes: the AI is smart and will never accept it (ie an offer), or the AI is dumb and will always accept (ie a gift) . Anything else will require extensive programming on the AI to discern the pros and cons of getting money in exchange for corruption, in addition to considerations like how to deal with the corruption that comes afterwards. That is of course if you even want the AI to presume corruption as a side effect of this apparent gift. If the game doesn't have that, then it needs that on top of this new diplomacy idea. Elementary feature creep: you want idea X, which requires features Y, which in turn also demands feature Z. So idea X turns out to require many more changes than simply throwing in X.

Then you came up with the agent spam thing, then admitted this game as no agent spam, but to oppose the idea you say it causes agent spam. lol Brilliant.

Yes I'm an idiot even thought I never said this game had it. How do I admit to something I never stated to the contrary? Agent spam is a problem and this idea will mean it makes a return; I did NOT say this game already has it. What I am saying is that if you can manipulate agents from faction X, action X no longer has reaches the limit and can thus train more of the agents. That is how agent manipulation works. Agent spam then occurs.The only way to "prevent" agent spam is to somehow be able to manipulate agents to join your cause, without going over your own agent limit, AND preventing the target faction from being able to train more. But that is far worse an idea because it means you can hog all the agents in the game and the AI can do nothing about it. Even if we're to stupidly presume this is still a great idea, then it's just overpowered.

so now you ignore the limits of the feature and say that it's not how the game is meant to be played. What?! We are talking about WoC and WoC only, not the entire game.

I don't need to address the limits because it doesn't matter: if you can control another faction's army and can do whatever you like to it, the limitations of being 2-3 turns is entirely irrelevant. A player can simply take control and disband. That's stupid an idea on its own.

With the infiltrate settlement and replace building thing, you simple can't muster a good reason to oppose it can you? It's not gamebreaking, that's just as stupid as saying flying total war units is game breaking before it's done. That's not something you know, and it can only be tested. ...and the defense of chaos infighting was sillier than your first attempt.

The benefits to the player and the cost to the target faction alone makes it a good reason to oppose and very valid reason to think it's gamebreaking. If you think that's a stupid thing to say, well you also need to realize that's hardly a counterargument in support of the idea.

With the blasphemous trait there could be more penalties. Like I said before-Unlocked on level 15 or higher-Causes close proximity infighting-raiding income is decreased in lords army-replenish is decreased in lords army

First, like I said before you're no even trying to get rid of infighting by letting it come back in this skill. Second, traits are not unlocked, they are triggered. The proper term is skill. Not brilliant, you're welcome to try again.Third, if you implement the manipulate enemy army idea, then you'd never have your Lords levelling up to level 15, because you're just going to use enemy armies to do the dirty work. That was my point.

If you want a skill that simulates charisma and favour of dark gods, all you need to do is design traits and skills that reduce infighting. There are skills that reduce attrition losses, so frankly this alternative is far more practical, and based on game design that already exist. There is no need for any fancy bonus-penalty switcharoo ultimate skill. Every Chaos player is going to want to use that skill because of how useful it is. The drawback- like all skills-is having to use up skillpoints that might be better of put elsewhere in the meantime.I use a mod called "33 new skills" that add a plethora of universal (and some race-specific) skills for Lords and Heroes to unlock. One of the higher ones grants immunity to attrition sources for your army. I have not played Chaos with this mod, but I presume that this solves all of the infighting problems. A few other new skills involve a further reduction to attrition damage. Most skills implement a penalty of sorts as you unlock higher levels, but the first levels never give a penalty, though of course the bonus is rather small.Frankly the way this mod designs its skills is far superior to the "Blasphemous trait" idea, and has more depth, too. There are no single mega-skill that does multiple things at once, and the few that are, only a few unique features and the bonuses are not large. Your idea is improved if it merely divvies up the various benefits into separate skills, ie a skill that increases raiding income, and a skill tha reduces infighting penalty; I believe there is already a skill that increases replenishment.EDIT the mod in questionhttp://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=693722500&searchtext=skillsI believe the particular skill is called Survivalist, and unlocked at level 29. First level affects only Lord and Hero of that army; the second renders entire army immune to all attrition forms. While that's a long way off, there are other skills in between that reduce attrition damage, improve replenishment, as well as upkeep and reinforcement range, etc.

Yes the AI can be bad in certain areas of the game, but the idea of it being bad is not broad enough just to say that for any idea that has the AI involved especially when the Devs know the ends and outs.

Umm yes, an idea that involves, no, DEPENDS, on the AI's interaction has to take into account the AI being bad. Good ideas work around the AI's limitations; bad ideas presume that you don't need to work around them at all.Maybe rather than trying to act all smart and paint my comments with a broad brush, you can instead actually examine the ideas and criticisms I have offered?

As long as the close proximity infighting is not default in the chaos campaign. I would happily accept close proximity infighting if it were by a penalty or consequence of a trait or skill selection. The idea is that every chaos lord has this skill, it is unlocked and enabled at any high level, 15 on up. The penalties should give you some thought on whether to take it or not depending on what lord it is and the state of your campaign. But the benefits should be tempting as well. I think the penalties should discourage you from selecting that skill for all your chaos lords. But of course you can do it anyway.

Then you get overlapping problems like one lord has the skill but the other doesn't, and so you get both armies getting the infighting penalty even though you already spent a skillpoint for one of them that produces it and not the other. There is frankly a simpler solution by merely a skill that disables or reduces the effects, for either own army or regional/ global. That way the bonuses can stack and infighting penalty is reduced further the more Lords have the skill unlocked and levelled out. There is no need for a complicated "does this but also does that" skill.

Also, in case I didn't already say it, there are mods that remove infighting. By mods I mean lots of them. Take your pick.

First of all the AI being bad is of your opinion, and it's a general enough statement to not exactly apply to the idea of giving chaos corruption through giving money as a bad one.

Are you going to say that Total War AI in general, and Warhammer's AI in particular, is not bad but in opinion great? It's an established fact and something we deal with. Most of the game features are designed to get around the AI's limitations. That's not a bad thing, it's good or bad depending on how well it does that. A diplomacy feature that lets you basically buy corruption leads to two outcomes: the AI is smart and will never accept it (ie an offer), or the AI is dumb and will always accept (ie a gift) . Anything else will require extensive programming on the AI to discern the pros and cons of getting money in exchange for corruption, in addition to considerations like how to deal with the corruption that comes afterwards. That is of course if you even want the AI to presume corruption as a side effect of this apparent gift. If the game doesn't have that, then it needs that on top of this new diplomacy idea. Elementary feature creep: you want idea X, which requires features Y, which in turn also demands feature Z. So idea X turns out to require many more changes than simply throwing in X.

Then you came up with the agent spam thing, then admitted this game as no agent spam, but to oppose the idea you say it causes agent spam. lol Brilliant.

Yes I'm an idiot even thought I never said this game had it. How do I admit to something I never stated to the contrary? Agent spam is a problem and this idea will mean it makes a return; I did NOT say this game already has it. What I am saying is that if you can manipulate agents from faction X, action X no longer has reaches the limit and can thus train more of the agents. That is how agent manipulation works. Agent spam then occurs.The only way to "prevent" agent spam is to somehow be able to manipulate agents to join your cause, without going over your own agent limit, AND preventing the target faction from being able to train more. But that is far worse an idea because it means you can hog all the agents in the game and the AI can do nothing about it. Even if we're to stupidly presume this is still a great idea, then it's just overpowered.

so now you ignore the limits of the feature and say that it's not how the game is meant to be played. What?! We are talking about WoC and WoC only, not the entire game.

I don't need to address the limits because it doesn't matter: if you can control another faction's army and can do whatever you like to it, the limitations of being 2-3 turns is entirely irrelevant. A player can simply take control and disband. That's stupid an idea on its own.

With the infiltrate settlement and replace building thing, you simple can't muster a good reason to oppose it can you? It's not gamebreaking, that's just as stupid as saying flying total war units is game breaking before it's done. That's not something you know, and it can only be tested. ...and the defense of chaos infighting was sillier than your first attempt.

The benefits to the player and the cost to the target faction alone makes it a good reason to oppose and very valid reason to think it's gamebreaking. If you think that's a stupid thing to say, well you also need to realize that's hardly a counterargument in support of the idea.

With the blasphemous trait there could be more penalties. Like I said before-Unlocked on level 15 or higher-Causes close proximity infighting-raiding income is decreased in lords army-replenish is decreased in lords army

First, like I said before you're no even trying to get rid of infighting by letting it come back in this skill. Second, traits are not unlocked, they are triggered. The proper term is skill. Not brilliant, you're welcome to try again.Third, if you implement the manipulate enemy army idea, then you'd never have your Lords levelling up to level 15, because you're just going to use enemy armies to do the dirty work. That was my point.

If you want a skill that simulates charisma and favour of dark gods, all you need to do is design traits and skills that reduce infighting. There are skills that reduce attrition losses, so frankly this alternative is far more practical, and based on game design that already exist. There is no need for any fancy bonus-penalty switcharoo ultimate skill. Every Chaos player is going to want to use that skill because of how useful it is. The drawback- like all skills-is having to use up skillpoints that might be better of put elsewhere in the meantime.I use a mod called "33 new skills" that add a plethora of universal (and some race-specific) skills for Lords and Heroes to unlock. One of the higher ones grants immunity to attrition sources for your army. I have not played Chaos with this mod, but I presume that this solves all of the infighting problems. A few other new skills involve a further reduction to attrition damage. Most skills implement a penalty of sorts as you unlock higher levels, but the first levels never give a penalty, though of course the bonus is rather small.Frankly the way this mod designs its skills is far superior to the "Blasphemous trait" idea, and has more depth, too. There are no single mega-skill that does multiple things at once, and the few that are, only a few unique features and the bonuses are not large. Your idea is improved if it merely divvies up the various benefits into separate skills, ie a skill that increases raiding income, and a skill tha reduces infighting penalty; I believe there is already a skill that increases replenishment.EDIT the mod in questionhttp://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=693722500&searchtext=skillsI believe the particular skill is called Survivalist, and unlocked at level 29. First level affects only Lord and Hero of that army; the second renders entire army immune to all attrition forms. While that's a long way off, there are other skills in between that reduce attrition damage, improve replenishment, as well as upkeep and reinforcement range, etc.

Yes the AI can be bad in certain areas of the game, but the idea of it being bad is not broad enough just to say that for any idea that has the AI involved especially when the Devs know the ends and outs.

Umm yes, an idea that involves, no, DEPENDS, on the AI's interaction has to take into account the AI being bad. Good ideas work around the AI's limitations; bad ideas presume that you don't need to work around them at all.Maybe rather than trying to act all smart and paint my comments with a broad brush, you can instead actually examine the ideas and criticisms I have offered?

As long as the close proximity infighting is not default in the chaos campaign. I would happily accept close proximity infighting if it were by a penalty or consequence of a trait or skill selection. The idea is that every chaos lord has this skill, it is unlocked and enabled at any high level, 15 on up. The penalties should give you some thought on whether to take it or not depending on what lord it is and the state of your campaign. But the benefits should be tempting as well. I think the penalties should discourage you from selecting that skill for all your chaos lords. But of course you can do it anyway.

Then you get overlapping problems like one lord has the skill but the other doesn't, and so you get both armies getting the infighting penalty even though you already spent a skillpoint for one of them that produces it and not the other. There is frankly a simpler solution by merely a skill that disables or reduces the effects, for either own army or regional/ global. That way the bonuses can stack and infighting penalty is reduced further the more Lords have the skill unlocked and levelled out. There is no need for a complicated "does this but also does that" skill.

Also, in case I didn't already say it, there are mods that remove infighting. By mods I mean lots of them. Take your pick.

I could care less about mods that affect the campaign though. I don't trust mods like you might. And I never chalk up people's concerns with "use a mod". As I said they could make a skill or trait in which the penalty is infighting or they could make one that makes the lord immune to infighting. I don't care as long as there is a good reason for it or a way to get rid of it.

I could care less about mods that affect the campaign though. I don't trust mods like you might. And I never chalk up people's concerns with "use a mod". As I said they could make a skill or trait in which the penalty is infighting or they could make one that makes the lord immune to infighting. I don't care as long as there is a good reason for it or a way to get rid of it.

Then good luck getting CA to do all the work that mods already do. Why should they chalk up to what is basically one's superstition about a method of tweaking gameplay? They don't; even legitimate concerns that mods cannot resolve haven'e been addressed. If you don't "trust" other mods, you can always make your own.

I could care less about mods that affect the campaign though. I don't trust mods like you might. And I never chalk up people's concerns with "use a mod". As I said they could make a skill or trait in which the penalty is infighting or they could make one that makes the lord immune to infighting. I don't care as long as there is a good reason for it or a way to get rid of it.

Then good luck getting CA to do all the work that mods already do. Why should they chalk up to what is basically one's superstition about a method of tweaking gameplay? They don't; even legitimate concerns that mods cannot resolve haven'e been addressed. If you don't "trust" other mods, you can always make your own.

If you are happy with mods then ok. But I'm fine with a suggestion on a different way of doing chaos infighting. Especially when it makes more sense than the way it's done now.

A lot of the features would be brand new to the total war franchise, so I get the worry of the AI acting up. Also I don't depend on campaign changing mods because when I make a mod I tend to tweak other things unrelated, so I have a sneaking suspicion other modders dabble as well

...speaking of mods. I'm wrapping up the look I want chaos to have. I actually changed Archaon's entity and made him a custom one. It was actually easy. He knocks infantry around a bit more, and he's bigger in size. He's also hits harder and his melee defense is up. All I need is a kill animation....If only CA were to put a cool kill animation in there. I'm also using a reskin from the workshop. I tweaked it a little, but can someone please tell me how to change the color of the glow from the faces and the swords. I would like the faces to glow red or not at all, and I would like the weapons to be darker, but still have that brimstone feel. ......oh and I made Kholek bigger and stronger.

-- Have the skill boxes that you pay for increase 2 skill points to recruited generals. The main line of tech can offer skill level to the recuited lords , so your late-game lords will be able to jump into the fight much faster.

One thing that really annoyed me, was new lords being weak and having to start all over again with a new horde. It makes sense considering it's a new horde, but the lords themselves are level 1 with little to no start up strength. That's an annoying thing about horde armies, they can't get access to good units because they are completely separate unlike normal factions where new lords can recruit good units. So it's a really good idea if the tech trees progressively gave skill level points to new lords. Especially when buying those expensive tech trees to even go down the research line.

--Give chaos heroes the ability to infiltrate a settlement for X amount of turns. After X amount of turns there will be a new building( maybe a corrupted variation) that replaces a current building in that settlement. This new building will be one that sucks money out of the faction and cause chaos corruption. -1200 gold and +5 corruption. These buildings can cost a chunk of money to get rid of to really affect treasuries and possibly cripple the economy for a while. And your agent might get wounded and fail the mission in the process depending on level and skill.

To got with this they could do a chaos vandalize building like the greenskins.

I want to type up the technical side of most of the features or at least some of them, but I don't want to do it in vain. I would like to know if the devs are reading the thread because laying out the technical side of the features would be pointless if the devs are not paying attention. I want to explain my thoughts on the new agent actions, the citadel function, new infighting implementation, and Archaon's kill animation on a more technical side. I know devs like that because it's easier for them to envision the idea and see from a doable standpoint for the game